The PA Legislative Black Caucus is hard at work, given the release of former legislator Tom Druce from prison. For those of you not familiar with the case, Druce orchestrated his own career/personal spin+flip+crash+burn when he struck a man on Cameron Street in Harrisburg back in 1999. According to statements of those with whom he had been earlier that evening, Druce was probably DUI, and Mr. Cains, the fellow he struck was noted as being under the influence of alcohol.
If you haven’t figured it out by now, Mr. Cains is black, and Mr. Druce is white, which has bupkis to do with the matter at hand. Tom Druce had avoided jail for years, and did his jail time in a tennis-club corrections facility not because he is white, but because he knows the system, is able to advantage himself of its opportunities, and because he has a few more shekels in his pocket. That the man he struck is black matters no more than were he yellow, green, or plaid. Had I the bad karma to have struck Mr. Cains, I’d still be in a PMITA prison, not because the gentleman I hit was black, but because I lacked the connections available to Tom Druce, although I’m equally as caucasian.
When race truly makes a difference with respect to how plaintiffs and defendants are treated, let us all know so those wrongs can be righted, but don’t bitch when it’s not a factor.
Speaking as a felllow from that fine metropolis, I heartily concur.
As a side note, and not intended as a hijack: why do they keep mentioning that he was a Marine? What does that have to do with anything either? If he was an ex-accountant would that have made it less tragic?
Around here Mr. Druce is seen as a slimy little worm who only got caught because the police recived a timp in a Christmas card. He played and will continue to play the system, and his name will pop up in politices again someday. Not as a runner, but as a player, I can guarantee it.
Not sure if i clicked on the right link, or if there’s some detail that doesn’t show up on my computer, but i didn’t see a single reference to race in either of the articles you linked to. Is it some sort of invisible race card that is being played here?
Could it possibly be that we just have a group of legislators who feel that—regardless of race—the penalties for leaving the scene of an accident are not tough enough?
You do realise, i assume, that Black Caucuses do not have to believe that an issue is directly related to race in order to form an opinion about it?
I don’t see any race card, except the one ascribing race-baiting to the Pa. Legislative Black Caucus without a shred of evidence. There’s no hint in the linked stories that the PLBC is reacting to anything other than a desire to increase the penalties for hit-and-run crimes. At worst, they’re springboarding the effort on the publicity surrounding Druce’s parole, which is fair play as far as I’m concerned. Playing the race card would consist of falsely or carelessly attributing racist motives to their opponents on this issue, or (less objectionably) painting this initiative as an effort to combat racism, and no opposition even seems to have materialized yet. To accuse these legislators of this is not justified by the facts so far provided. Either there’s actual evidence, or the OP is based on personal knowledge of the men and women involved, or we’re meant to infer their motives from the mere fact that they’re the Pa. Legislative Black Caucus, which would be kind of silly, given the scrupulous racial neutrality the OP advocates.
The OP is troubling for other reasons as well. It admonishes us not to bitch about imaginary racial disparities. Okay, noted, but who’s doing that and what does it have to do with this? It implies that the main consequence of Mr. Druce’s July 1999 escapade was the destruction of his own career, and does not mention that Druce’s victim, Mr. Cains, was killed. It does mention that the victim had been drinking, but fails to note that this fact is irrelevant to the crimes of which Druce was convicted. It states that Mr. Cain’s fate was the result of “karma,” which implies both that the victim deserved to die and that Druce was not culpable. It ignores Druce’s role as the author of a criminal cover-up and fraud that lasted half a year. It attributes the extremely trivial legal consequences not to race, but to money (or “shekels,” as the OP has it) and connections, naively disavowing that these resources have anything to do with race. Also bothersome: “equally as caucasian.” Does the OP mean they’re both white? Or is the degree of whiteness actually important?
The PA Legislative Black Caucus has been making local news. It may not have hit the national news yet, if it ever does.
The irony is that Druce campaigned for tougher penalties for exactly the crime he committed, but there may be support to increase the mandatory penalties for hit-and-run.
Hmph, I’d say the bigger problem is the total lack of persecution of drivers who hid pedestrians. The best way to kill someone is to hit them with your car. You’ll get off scott free 90%, the rest of the time? Slap on the wrist.
You could’ve pitted plea bargaining, politicians abusing their influence, politicians writing laws that they don’t want applied to themselves, etc.
Yeah I’d pit the PA Legislative Black Caucus, five year license suspension for H&R involving injury or death, how 'bout a permanent one!
Can we, for the love of all that is sweet and greasy, please retire the phrase “playing the race card”? If there ever was a more hackneyed thing, it is that.
We can retire the phrase when people stop playing it. If the phrase seems hackneyed and trite, that is because it is far, far overused.
Personally, I think that is one of the greatest things working against the black community in America today. Black politicians often overplay the race card, pulling it out for any and every fight they’re in where they think they can get away with it. Locally, the City Council of Dallas sees this happen all the time, to the point where it is almost meaningless.
“Playing the race card” works the other way, too, you know. The OP, for example, has done so by decrying something that isn’t even there. So I agree with you that it is overused, but perhaps not how you mean.
And while your opinion about blacks overly “playing the race card” may have merit, one could also say that whites do themselves a great disservice by being so quick to deny the relevance of race. Always claiming that the race card is being played, even in response to legitimate gripes, just makes someone look, at best, like someone in denial and at worst, an apologist for racism. Certainly that’s not what most whites want to come off looking like, but that’s the impression I get whenever someone reacts to the mere mentioning of race by saying someone is “playing the race card”. YMMV, apparently.
Racism is a bad thing? Wow! I’ve lead a sheltered life, so I had no idea!!!
The point, which you have either entirely missed, or wish to ignore, is that crying “racism” every time something doesn’t go your way politically, is counterproductive. The cry of “racism” becomes diluted, like the boy who cried “wolf”, to the point where whites start ignoring all cries of racism, much to the detriment of all of society.
I absolutely agree, but I think it’s at least partially due to the “boy who cried wolf” syndrome. And part of it really is good old fashioned real actual racism. I can just tell you my own point of view, and that’s when I hear a black Dallas City Council person yelling about racism, my first reaction is to ignore it.
This is not how I’ve always felt. It’s something that has built up over nearly twenty years of living in Dallas. I’ll be happy to go into the details if you’d like.
Here is an article more germane to the point that the OP was making. That author clearly sees the PA Legislative Black Caucus banging the drum over this, and he dispels any notion that Druce’s parole is race related by showing the statistics.
It seriously looks like the Caucus is playing race here, although it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy. Druce is a scumbag who should have gotten a lot more than he did. He’s been whining for years about how he’s being unfairly punished. I wonder how Mr. Cains feels. I’d ask him, but he’s dead.
This op-ed seems to be making the same pitfall that the OP is, in that its arguing against a claim that no one seems to be making.
Nothing in that piece you linked suggests that the Caucus is doing more than saying an injustice has occured. In this case, racial accusations really only seem to be coming from those who are predisposed to discounting claims about racism.
Let me ask you something, then. Why, specifically, do you think the PA Black Caucus thought enough about this case to comment on the unfairness of his parole, and why, specifically, do you think that “In our communities we’re hearing outrage” if not for race? What communities is he referring to? Why are they outraged?
Moreover, since the author has demonstrated that “78 percent of nonviolent offenders were paroled last year after minimum terms” and “The Department of Corrections tells me just 37 percent of state prison inmates are white”, this paroling is not even remotely out of the norm, what’s the issue here?
Maybe the Caucus is like doing their job? Maybe the ‘community’ feels rightly or wrongly that it’s the same ol same ol, when a black is killed by a white, especially a rich white guy and are pissed off.
Don’t know, I hardly would call it playing the race card, when an organization created to address the issues of a community that at the time of the organization’s creation had been unrepresented; is mentioning the unfairness of an unfair parole, which so happens to be something their communities have historically been subjected to…even if this isn’t a matter a race…this time.
One can honestly talk about the concern a community has concerning a specific case even if it’s about race, without playing the race card…unless you believe the very mention of a racial issue, makes one a race-baiter?
They’re supposed to represent black people. Black people are pissed off because it’s a black man who is being denied justice in their eyes. It doesn’t mean that they think he was denied justice because he was black.
Every time a Senator speaks up for people from Bumfuck, Iowa or wherever, does he do so because he thinks Bumfuckians are being unfairly oppressed? No, he does it because they’re his constituency, and that’s his job. Now, should the PA Black Caucus’s mission only be to represent black people when they’re being hard done by because they are black, then you’d have a point. But it ain’t. It is just to advance their interests. Black people are interested in getting justice for the dead man, thus, the PABLC is involved. Surely you would agree that it is in the interests of black people that if some ass mows someone down in the street, he is properly punished? Right?
If you’re going to automatically assume that they’re making implicit accusations of racism every time they open their mouths, then they can hardly avoid pissing you off, can they? Maybe they do think racism is involved, but they certainly haven’t said so, and the mere fact that they took a (perfectly reasonable) stance on this issue does not prove or even indicate that they think that.
